Acer: PC Industry Disappointed with Vista

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

July 24, 2007, 11:42 AM

In an interview with Financial Times Deutschland, the president of global #3 PC manufacturer Acer once again conveyed his overall disappointment with the lack of contribution he believes Microsoft's Windows Vista provides to PC sales. Though Gianfranco Lanci's comments were only briefly excerpted, for the first time, Lanci purported to speak not just for Acer but for his competitors as well, telling the paper, "Die gesamte Industrie ist enttäuscht über Windows Vista." ("The entire industry is disappointed with Windows Vista.")

Most likely, Lanci's comments were in Italian and translated into German. But a summary of his explanation by FTD points to two factors, the second being what he characterized as Vista's relative instability and lack of maturity. Lanci and other manufacturers had apparently hoped for a surge in sales comparable to what Windows XP and its predecessors provided.

Some independent analysts actually believe such a surge did take place, and also believe Acer was a principal benefactor. Last month, iSuppli estimated total PC shipments for Acer rose at a spellbinding annual rate of 45.8%, with over 4.2 million units sold in the first quarter of 2007. It still would have to more than double those shipments to catch up with global #2 supplier Dell, but Dell's shipments continue to decline, and could conceivably meet Acer halfway if this trend continues.

Overall, unit shipments among the world's top five producers grew at an annual rate of 8.7%. But that's actually a fairly nominal pace, if not just a little low, especially as unit growth for Lenovo and Toshiba slowed down. Nonetheless, PC industry growth actually has come in above many analysts' estimates this year.

Whether the whole industry is actually pointing fingers at Vista for the lack of a sales surge is unknown, though Acer indeed has not been alone in its stance. Nonetheless, Acer's executives have been naysayers since near the time Microsoft announced the Vista release delay last year.

Last October, the company's senior vice president, James Wong, accused Microsoft of actively scheming to provoke customers to upgrade their PCs, by under-equipping Vista Home Basic to give customers the impression their computers were under-equipped as well.

Then Lanci seized the baton, warning BusinessWeek readers last January, "Many years ago, when Microsoft announced a new operating system, there were people queuing in the streets. This time you will not see people queuing in the streets waiting for Vista."

An India Times story last April added Lanci's voice to the chorus of components manufacturers, including motherboard producers Asustek and Samsung, saying the demand surge they had expected to see in the first quarter never really materialized. In what might have been a poor translation from Italian to Hindi to English, Lanci was quoted as saying, "Vista has had no big help."

Financial analysts last year pointed to the fact that the key recipients of Acer's resurgence have been emerging markets, including the Middle East and Africa. There, PCs are often sold at lower costs; and to maintain margins, manufacturers who aren't interested in sacrificing quality opt to provide components that may be adequate, though not necessarily the state-of-the-art.

Acer's defense appears to be that Vista isn't really state-of-the-art anyway, and that not offering it in many markets isn't really a sacrifice.

In the US, however, Acer's marketing tells a very different story than its global executives. Its Web site currently boasts a headline reading, "Acer recommends Windows Vista Home Premium for Personal Computing."

Lanci's latest comments come a week after Microsoft's quarterly performance report, in which CFO Chris Liddell admitted to analysts that the sales mix of Vista to Windows XP was much more balanced than the company had estimated.

While Vista was forecast to account for 85% of Windows shipments in the previous quarter, it ended up accounting for only 78%. However, in another way of slicing the pie, the mix of premium OS to basic OS shipments shifted 17% over the prior year toward the premium side, Microsoft stated, due to higher demand for Vista Home Premium.

Add a Comment (107 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By horsecharles

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 10:28 AM

On the one hand, you can't fault MS & expect initial OS release to be seamless... this is just common sense: look back at every previous Windows version-- how long it took to make each production-ready.

On the other hand, we do fault MS for making us all obligatory beta testers this time around-- esp. in light of how incomplete Vista is.

Had Vista been an optional OS choice, MS wouldn't be getting excoriated so much.

Score: 0

By ingram091

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 1:30 PM

Correction HorseCharies. We are beta testers that have paid OUT THE NOSE, or been FORCED to adopt an OS that is incomplete, Nothing more then a windows xp SP3 as far as eye candy and innovation goes, and thrawt with big brother call back routines in it that cripples itself at the first sign of consumer customization or unauthorized code usage through DRM. Like I said. For whats in Vista it should just be a service pack to XP, not a $400+ product, or a forced on you OEM. What is worse is if you go from XP pro to Vista "HOME" you actually LOOSE several functions that should be there... This is an upgrade? I don't think so...

Score: 0

By terminalx

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 9:43 PM

You should actually USE the OS before copying anti-ms comments.

It couldnt be added as sp3 as they reworked the kernal (which explains why drivers are a big issue)

The only DRM that is to read content that has DRM in it already.

Vista ultimate is 200 for OEM

Forced? You don't have buy a name brand PC, even if you can't build it yourself most places customize pcs now, even walmart.

Yeah Since XP PRO is geared more towards business not home media.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 4:25 PM

I can't find a single thing in that entire post that even vaguely resembles fact or logical thinking.

That last one's a real doozy. If you buck the upgrade path to install a lower SKU, of *course* you will loose features. Home -> Home. Pro -> Ultimate.

Durr....

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 1:53 PM

You obviously are completely uninformed and unfamiliar with XP and Vista...

Score: 0

By ingram091

edited Jul 26, 2007 - 8:59 AM

Ah Actually no, I beta tested ultimate and know about Windows quite well, I have worked for MS in the past back when windows 2000 was the next big thing. which it actually was... And all XP Pro and Vista Ultimate has done is fancy up the works and add several extra unneeded background processes that eat up resources and force a consumer into buying More equipment just to get what they had in a prior version performance wise...

To this a day I use my windows 2000 advanced server with windows 2000 Pro workstations at work. and you know what? they work 100% with zero security issues, cause the policies are set up correctly, and there are good routers and firewalls working as all companies should have. What does this mean? I will not be going to Vista Business? Shocker!!! If it ain't broke do not fix it.

The point in fact Vista is barely a SP3 equivalent to Windows XP pro. Aeroglass works on XP in its original code, Bit locker has any number of competitor bands that work just as well even on windows 2000, the video desktop, that still has not been released? well that 100% possible all the way back to windows 2000 with VLC. Media center, well that too is superior on XP, but if you want it for Windows 2000 too, or just as a free addon to windows XP, try SesamTV Media Center. works exactly the same way, and is just as good in many ways. I can go on and on. Directx 10 is about to have its libraries recoded so it runs on XP, so that's no great shock. the gaming industry is forcing MS hand on that one cause they are not happy with a vista exclusive requirement. Windows onecare, is a joke at best, there are free version that do the same thing all the way back to windows 2000 even on this site. Most of the MS" vista exclusives" work on XP using orca to remove the limitations statement in the installers. Want windows defender on windows 2000 use orca, and bingo it works and updates itself no problem... Oh want eh Vista Shell? again look no further then here for the ability to upgrade any windows XP so it looks and feels just as good is not better then vista. As well as sidebar.. duh that's been around for ages.

Anything else you want to talk about smart ass. I have worked in the IT field for 20 years. And NOTHING Vista has in it is worth a dime if you already have windows XP pro or Windows XP Media center, let alone $400. The thing I object too is being forced to buy a OEM I will never want or use. And Places like HP and DELL, and Acer any of them have no choice but to force it on you cause MS insists on it in their vendor contracts.

Oh and the ever popular OEM quote... you do realize that every person that uses an OEM that did not get it with a full brand new machine, has violated the EULA and as such is a illegal enduser (pirate) in MS eyes. Yep. Thats right folks... No matter what way you rub it MS thinks all their consumers are pirates, and their pretty much right under their criteria. The point is the criteria is set too high, and the fact that in Vista, MS Big brother now has at their fingertips the shut off button at any moment they wish. In no OS prior has this been more true then with Vista. Want to code your own HD player, tough, Vista does not allow it. here is a small list of the "services" that Vista requires to run and any one of which can cripple your OS at the flick of a flag from MS.
Auto Root Update, Customer Experience Improvement Program (CEIP), Device Manager Digital Certificates, Driver Protection, Dynamic Update, File Association Web Service, Games Folder, Input Method Editor (IME), Installation Improvement Program, Internet Explorer 7, IPv6 Network Address Translation (NAT) Traversal Service (Teredo), Network Awareness, Network Connectivity Status Icon, Parental Controls, Peer Name Resolution Service, Plug and Play, Plug and Play Extensions, Program Compatibility Assistant, Rights Management Services (RMS) Client, Update Root Certificates, Windows Control Panel, Windows Mail (Windows Live Mail, Hotmail, or MSN Mail), Windows Media Digital Rights Management and Windows Media Player.

Enjoy your big brother telling you what where and who you can talk to from now one bubba. Cause MS has their hands right up where the sun don't shine twiddling their fingers on you...

You know what forget it. you Pro Vista twits are hopeless. Mindless automatons that take anything MS feeds you while they reach into your wallets deeper and deeper each time for more of the same old thing.

The ONLY thing that gives Vista any redemption at all is 64bit. But I can assure you that 64bit is still a long way from global adoption. And that is where Vienna (formerly Blackcomb, now windows NT 7.0) steps in... That is the point Vista as it is now is barely a stepping stone OS, but its billed as the next big thing. Its just not the truth. It was basically a Windows XP SP3 that you paid twice the price as Windows XP pro to get. The new API the new framework system the new disk structures management everything that was once innovative has been pushed back to windows 7. opath, storespy, rave, Cairo, Hailstorm, and WinFS, all of it, pushed back another 3 years at least. and what do you people do.. reward MS for charging you for what should have been a mere service pack.

I remain Skeptical of Fiji (Visa Home Premium Media Edition update) But as I said WME is more the set top box computer, turning a dual core power horse into a Tivo. My instinct on this is its not going to be a SP to Vista as in SP2. it will likely be a Plus type addon for Home premium that upgrades the Media Center.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 26, 2007 - 9:31 AM

I have worked for MS in the past back when windows 2000 was the next big thing.

It's becoming clearer now.

Someone got the ol' pink-slip, eh? Explains a lot.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

edited Jul 25, 2007 - 9:48 AM

"I Absolutely LOVE Windows Vista"
--Translated to German--
--Translated to English--
"The World will soon perish at the hands of Bill Gates' Evil, Methodical, torture in the form of Windows Vista Basic Torture Edition"

Score: 0

By slimf

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 7:54 AM

I just got back from a friends place - Brand new Vista 32bit PC, 2gig ram, E6600 cpu, 8600GT video card.

The system runs great. All I did was update his software - Nero 7 with updates, nvidia driver updates, intel chipset driver updates, windows updates, virus scanner updates, office updates, installed latest adobe reader, latest Java, latest flash player, a vista codec pack, a torrent downloading proggy.

What else does the average Joe Pc user need?

He now has a great PC, sexy UI, working applications - Whats to complain about.

As long as he looks for and installs the newest version of software and he is made aware that he should look for software thats Vista tested, he aint going to have any problems.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 8:37 AM

Hope you put on the latest Nvidia BETA drivers. It fixes quite a few issues with hibernation/sleep.

Score: 0

By slimf

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 7:48 AM

One thing everyone needs to remember as well - Windows XP and all the 3rd party software has had 5 years to get it right - And finally they are starting to.

Vista has had what - 6 months since release.

Score: 0

By ingram091

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 7:18 AM

I purchased a new laptop recently and I was sincerly disapointed that I could not just get what I wanted from DELL. instead I got the Vista home disc OEM and basically deleted it what was on it when I got the thing. Put windows XP Pro on the machine and all was good. (luckily my old laptop was also a DELL with a OEM disc and it installed with no activation as all Dell OEMs do on Dell equipment.) Am I now a pirate? Probably since I have basically trashed the Vista they forced on me kicking and screaming. I would switch to linux if it was 100% compatible with everything I have. and its not quite there yet... Its a hard push to move to linux when for 92% of the rest of the world you do business with will not be using it. So suddenly you incompatible. Lets face it MS screwed us from the beginning real good. But until I have no choice but to go to something I can't stand, I will stick with what works. If it aint broke don't fix it.

Score: 0

By E.T

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 6:45 AM

Forget it about vista or longhorn! and forget it about linux {ubuntu, fedora, suse, redhat etc} all are suck.

The future OS was coming...

That is "ReactOS" for everyone!. ReactOS is free windows operating system and open source.

for more detail: http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html

http://www.reactos.org/en/about_whatisreactos.html

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 12:03 PM

*laughs*

YEah. Let me know when it will install and run (without modification of the installer) at *least* 30% of the apps and drivers out there for WIndows.

Until then it's not "Windows Compatible"....not even close.

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 10:49 AM

Ok, I'm willing to try anything these days. I'll get back to you.

Score: 0

By Sven123456789

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 6:33 AM

My friend got a new pc with Vista. Its a train wreck. XP has some compatibility probs when it came out, but not like Vista. My friend went to all the software sites for the latest drivers, and most still didn't work properly. Plus i also noticed that unlike XP, it seems like Microsoft hid most features, and you have to putz around activating them. Speed seemed the same, so the comments here about it being much faster, I don't believe it. As for the pc makers, when will they get it. People don't rush out to buy a new pc because of a new operating system. They go out and get a pc when there old one just doesn't cut it anymore. Vista may change this. I know allot of people who plan on just upgrading there current pc's so they don't have to get Vista with it.

Score: 0

By BIL

edited Jul 25, 2007 - 6:23 AM

I find it interesting that some say Vista runs faster and some say it is slower. Of my friends that have moved on to Vista one likes it and the other three say it is a waste and recommend staying with XP until Vista improves. All have experienced various "glitches" with Vista. I think they may be right about waiting a bit to see if it does improve. I have no real need for more power. My XP is very fast and suits my work and personal requirements very well.

Score: 0

By DonGato

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 8:47 AM

It's all about the comparison. An old XP installation with many applications and services and a base Vista one doesn't seem a good comparison and seems to be what most people do. Just compare over the same hardware a new XP installation and a Vista one with the same set of applications and services. I recently did it with two computers:

1. A new HP notebook with a Turion X2 and 1Gb RAM. XP worked 2 times faster or more. I had to get rid of the bundled OS because the notebook seemed like an old Pentium I running windows 2000 with just 64Mb of RAM. It was astonishing.

2. An old Athlon 64 3200 with 1Gb RAM. XP worked between 2 and 1.5 times faster. Running any application was visibly slower and startup/shutdown took at least 2 times more.

Just checked, in both cases, times opening applications and starting up/shutting down the system, as well as some simple operations like opening a dialog, copying files, showing a tooltip. You would say a second more or less isn't something to die for but I want my computer to be as fast as possible as I use it for work and don't care about visuals.

I was told you need a state of the art machine to run Vista faster than XP, meaning a powerful dual core processor and at least 2Gb of RAM. It might be true, but with XP 1Gb is just fine and I don't want to buy top of the line computers and pay extra $$$ I could use for other things.

On another hand I can't stand Vista interface and operation "improvements". I don't want to spend hours customizing my OS so I'm not asked if I want to run the application I just run like 4 times.

Score: 0

By shy_one

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 4:52 AM

Vista runs much faster than XP on my system and it only has a AMD 3500 and 1 gig of ram.(posibly due to the fact that Vista with uac turned on anti virus and firewall are not realy needed yet)

The only problem with Vista i have is when copying to/from media cards and mp3 players it does take a while for the transfer to start.

Thinking about how Windows is getting more towards security and Linux more ease of use does anyone else think they will meet somewhere in the middle? Reading the article about Windows 7 and how MS wants to test the waters of subscription services to enhance the OS made me think if MS was thinking the same thing and are looking for a new source of revenue since they would have to practicaly give the OS out.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 12:01 PM


The only problem with Vista i have is when copying to/from media cards and mp3 players it does take a while for the transfer to start.


I hear SP1 will fix this. I was hoping they'd fix it sooner, but...

Score: 0

By adrian47uk

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 4:25 AM

I have Xp on my desktop and Vista on the laptop which is an Acer, I did not buy the Acer because of Vista, in fact when I first had it, Xp was supplied and I had the free update, but it took me a month to decide to install it.

Some people would have put off buying a computer until Vista was launched, but I think most people would not have done so.

Vista is fine on the laptop as it is only used for the basic stuff, like browsing and a bit of office work, but I have software that would just fall over on Vista, I tried the Beta version of Vista on my desktop and found out that I could not run the software I wanted to use.

If you are starting from fresh, then maybe Vista is ok, but even then, you will have problems with software you buy.

As for Linux, yes I would love to use it, but the software that is available is awful and again you got hardware problems.

Someone here said about the 64 bit version of Vista, again that is all well and good, but that is worse than the 32 bit for compatibility.

I think if I could afford it, I would get a Mac, but I am sticking with Xp for a few years on my main computer, all I want is something just works.

Score: 0

By uberfly

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 1:24 AM

I am soon to build a new high-end machine. Correctly or incorrectly, I have this perception that if I build this significantly-faster machine, but put Vista on it instead of XP (as I'm using now), I will essentially see little performance gain in the end as Vista seems comparatively a much heavier OS and will nullify the new performance gains. Is this off-base and is Vista not as beefy as we are all led to believe or feel it is?

Score: 0

By slimf

edited Jul 25, 2007 - 3:40 AM

uberfly..

Vista's Kernal has been designed to take more advantage of Multicore CPU's, compared to the XP core. As time goes on Vista will take advantage of new hardware like quad/eight core etc CPU's. While XP is capable of Multicore processing, Vista is much better at it. The other thing to concider (especially if building a new system) is the 64bit version.

The 32bit version of XP or Vista will only give you about 3 gig ram. Getting 64bit Vista will allow you to grow this to say the full 4 gig or more - Giving your new applications HEAPS more room - Again, this performance increase will probably not be noticible on todays hardware or using todays applicaitions.
But in a very short time quad core and 4 gig ram WILL be main stream, and big applications will be able to take advantage of this extra ram. So, while XP will remain stuck, Vista will thrive in these new hardware environments.

Vista also gives regular software access to the GPU hardware - so in time these to will start to take advantage of the fast 3d cards installed. XP cannot give access to 3d hardware to regular desktop apps. Again, its somthing thats possible, but not taken advantage of yet. I can just imagine the next version or two of photoshop with amazing UI effects, real time UI animation, real time applying of effects etc.

I suppose what im saying is - Vista may not look bright and shiny now - But it will pull away from XP over the next 12-18 months when new hardware and software becomes available that Vista was designed to take advantage of.

Its most certaintly built for the future.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

edited Jul 25, 2007 - 6:37 AM

Both Vista and XP have 32 and 64-bit versions, which means they support the exact same memory configurations. Vista allocates memory differently than XP, and right now it's seen are sub par compared to XP with regards to legacy apps/games. http://www.anandtech.com...doc.aspx?i=3044&p=1

32 bit Operating systems support roughly 4 gigs of RAM, you can tweak that with PAE, but with some performance issues, namely applications must be aware of that hack.

In short: Vista will be good going forward. I fyou are on XP and it's working fine, I advise sticking with it. Only consider Vista when SP1 is out, especially considering the hibernation/sleep issues it's gone through...

Score: 0

By santuccie

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 2:57 AM

Vista is quite heavy, especially the upper versions with the aeroglass visuals. Vista can take up to 768 MB of RAM just to sit idly, while a naked copy of XP only takes 192.

Also, I'm a bit concerned about Vista's "content protection." According to Peter Gutmann, it's possible that Vista may never support Blu-Ray or HD DVD. And if you intend to build a high-end machine, I'm sure you'd like it to support HD video, yes? Stick with XP and a sturdy suite of security software.

I know this is off-topic, but AOL offers a free version of McAfee SecurityCenter that should be enough. It has IDS, script scanning, and much more: http://safety.aol.com/isc/index.adp? Use this, and keep Windows XP up to date, and you shouldn't need anything else. Salute!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 12:00 PM

Vista can take up to 768 MB of RAM just to sit idly, while a naked copy of XP only takes 192.

This is because it uses RAM instead of leaving it open and swapping constantly to the drive.

A lot of folks fall for that. They see the RAM usage and equate it to poor performance. Using RAM instead of the hard drive speeds the system up. XP swapped out most of it's operational code. Vista doesn't unless another application requests the space.

Also, I'm a bit concerned about Vista's "content protection." According to Peter Gutmann, it's possible that Vista may never support Blu-Ray or HD DVD.

Windows has never supported DVD playback (of any kind) out of the box. (I believe Vista supports DVD OOB, now) It's a licensing issue. USers will have to use cyberlink or powerDVD type software, just as they always have.

That said, no other OS currently supports HDCP, which is required to play these formats. So if you want Blu-Ray/HD DVD on your PC, you're going to have to use Vista.

Score: 0

By Jedite

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 1:26 AM

Vista is a heavy OS. However if you are building a new rig, with what I assume will be a Dualcore or Quad core processor, 2gigs of ram or more, and a good video card I suggest you get Vista(Ultimate, or Home Premium).

Score: 0

By uberfly

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 8:33 PM

Great info - thanks guys

Score: 0

By unixwhaaa

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 1:23 AM

Actually your all ****ing idiots.Use Fedora and move on

Score: 0

By unixwhaaa

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 1:21 AM

slimf:

Your a ****ing idiot. Nuff Said

Score: 0

By darkzero63

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 12:17 AM

Wow yet another article from Beta News bashing Microsoft. Who would have thunk it.

Score: 0

By slimf

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 11:30 PM

Microsoft is suffering from its own success.

XP was a MASSIVE success - For the first time in history the consumer OS used the same kernal as the server version - making it EASIER than ever for hardware manufactures (like Creative/Nvidia/ATI) to get their drivers ready.

No longer did manufacturers need to create different drivers for the different OS's.

XP was such a massive success that everyone is so used to it, they dont want to leave.

Vista has advanced the platform - The platform that will allow other software providers to write truly new and creative software and user interfaces in the future.

Right now, a LOT of the new stuff in Vista is barely visible.. But give it 12 months and Vista will start to shine.

The driver issues will be sorted - and most software applications will be fully compatible and some will start to use the new features like the WPF for stunning new UI's.

Vista right now is stable - Its the applications and drivers that are not - and these problems can and will be solved and it wont be Microsoft that solves them - it will be these 3rd party manufacturers.

IMHO Vista is a great PLATFORM for the future - I cant wait to see how it plays out.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 11:24 PM

Still selling XP white-box systems from our stores, and will continue to do so until Vista is clearly more compatible, more supported and more stable than XP SP2.

The only Vista boxes going out are the ones with customers foolish enough to request it specifically. Most are wise-enough to know that Vista is a foolhardy choice at the moment, and often come in saying so!

Score: 0

By Jedite

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 11:28 PM

Well that might be your opinion. Atm I am running 3 computers at home all with Vista and all with different Configurations. 2 home built systems and 1 HP laptop. So far no problems what so ever, for the exeption of some driver problems with the laptop but a little searching through the web solved them.

1 system is my gaming rig, the other the work PC/testbed, and finally the laptop thats reserved for the wife.

Don't call your customers foolish for taking Vista, they might just know more than you do.

Score: 0

By athome

edited Jul 25, 2007 - 1:06 AM

I also have 4 vista machines. 3 Desktops and 1 laptop. 2 running premiun, 1 using ultimate, and one business. I do not have these issues that he describes as well. Drivers are a problem and not necessarily the fault of MS, but those manufacturers that are not providing support for them. This lack of support seems almost intentional, and an attempt to force the consumer to purchase new rather than to update their older devices. Especially with regard to printers.

64bit processing has been out for some time now and still we are not seeing the manufacturers developing the driver base for this market. It is as if some manufacturers are downplaying Vista as well. I have heard many negative comments about Vista, but the only one that I find true is in regard to gaming. Right now, Vista is not a gaming computer system to buy. This manily is due to the lack of support it is receiving. Truly, there are many customers out there that are buying the new system and are happy with it.

I am often told by many of my customers that they have heard and read a lot of negative comments about Vista and afraid to upgrade, but after working with them, they find the opposite to be true. They have purchased their new machines and are very happy with them and their performance.

I think it is funny to hear companies complain about MS and blame them for their lack of sales, as in this case. Might it be for their own reasons that sales are low? I was just working with a customer today with a Dell printer(lexmark) in which they purchased a new HP computer and tried hooking up their AIO962. Though the updated drivers were on the website, they still were incompatible and offered no communication between the device and the computer. They now are forced to purchase another printer.

I had another customer whom purchased a new Vista machine and a HP color laser jet at the same time. The printer said it was compatible with vista, but the website only offered a workaround for printing and not the scanner. Within a week, I had seen three different versions of the driver surface on the site. The third driver is not fully compatible, but does make use of the scanner at this time. What frustration!

I beleive in the recycling of products and having lifecycles, but these are truly sad cases and I felt they were let down by Dell and Lexmark.

Score: 0

By kbsoftware

edited Jul 24, 2007 - 7:58 PM

My brother bought an Acer laptop this year (his second Acer laptop) with Vista Home Premium.
I love the Acer laptop very nice.
As for Vista whoopie doo. After spending some months "looking under the hood" it turns out to just be XP repacked with bug fixes and a few upgrades. Nothing special. I found Vista a bit flacky and I even got to see the famous bsod
http://flickr.com/photos/kbsoftware/537983372/

But still when most buy a new computer it will come with some version of Vista, so....

As for whole Acer disappointed stuff, I have a feeling most of it was poor translation and what wasn't was just bull. Looking for a scape goat I guess.

Just my 2 cents before taxes.

And for those who would call me a troll. Takes one to know one.

Score: 0

By athome

edited Jul 25, 2007 - 1:24 AM

I feel it is necessary to state what should be the obvious: BSODs are results of poorly written code. These "mainly" drivers from vendors, not MS. These are even the result of others taking advantage of vulnerabilities in the OS. By design a very needed instance to protect your PC from destruction. Though now, these issues are, again, obviously handled better in XP and Vista are still vital in keeping your PC protected from damage and the result of "poorly written code".

I think your last comment is insight into your own feelings about your intellect. (Mabye, a BSOD in your own mind)

Score: 0

By kbsoftware

edited Jul 25, 2007 - 12:39 PM

There is poorly written code for other os's as well, yet they don't have bsods. Windows is just as poorly written as any other program out there. Thus my comment for cleaning out the kludge.

"I think your last comment is insight into your own feelings about your intellect. (Mabye, a BSOD in your own mind)"

One could say that this comment from you is also an insight into your character.

Score: 0

By phenomnaruto

edited Jul 24, 2007 - 8:31 PM

Whats the problem, Is not every version Mac OSX nothing but its previous versions with lil upgrades also? what did you expect Microsoft to do with vista? offer you the matrix? and time travel?

Mac OS tiger to lepard is just a repacked version of the previous.

Vista wasn't made to sell computers, computer companies like ACER are responsible by making better computers, but umm i don't see Dell, or HP complaining or the numerous amount of people who have bought Vista for their computers and those who have illegally bootlegged it off torrent sites.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 11:22 PM

A better comparison would be OS 9.0 and OS X. XP to Vista is not an incremental upgrade, like 10.4 to 10.5 is on the Mac. If you want to compare the OS X upgrades, compare them to the service packs issued by Microsoft instead. That's a much closer analogy.

Score: 0

By sjc001

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 8:58 PM

Well, for $6 billion and 5 years we should get something more than an upgrade with useless iCandy. I'm using Ubuntu now. No more BSODs. :)

Score: 0

By kbsoftware

edited Jul 24, 2007 - 9:14 PM

I know nothing about Mac OSX and couldn't care less about it.

What I expected from Vista was at least some innovation, something new to make me say hey this is worth upgrading to. And maybe a good rewrite to get rid of the kludge.

Vista wasn't made to sell computers, but like it or not it does play a role with many.

Bootleggers can't complain about what they get, and when they do I just ignore it.

I think of situations like my brother who couldn't care less if his os is Vista, Mac, Linux or whatever as long as it runs the software he wants to use that's all that matters, the os is a second thought. And I think this is why Vista is going to well, but I can see this becoming a problem in the future of MS.

If my girlfriend was as stale as Microsoft's OS I would of dumped a long time ago.

Just my twisted thoughts.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 6:22 PM

Unfortunately, WinXP won't go over 2.5gb of ram. I built a box with 4g, and much of it is sitting in waste. Vista sits on my other drive, in waste of being a piece of crap compared to XP.

It's really time to make a decision. I can't leave windows because of the software I have to use. Unfortunately, that means I'm quite in limbo. Thanks Microsoft; nothing quite like being left out to dry. 10 years of loyalty got me here. Lame.

Score: 0

By slinkys_delsol

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 10:25 PM

I have quite a few PC's (Home) and a lot at the Office (Non Server) that run XP and they are all running 4GB of Ram.

You have Mixed / Faulty Ram my friend.

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 9:39 PM

Huh? So because WinXP apparently doesnt recognize more than 2.5 gig of ram, your going to continue using WinXP instead of your copy of Vista that is on your other drive?

Uh, right, yah, makes perfect sense......

More like 10 years of retardedness got you there, buddy.

Score: 0

By phenomnaruto

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 6:26 PM

wow, what did vista do to you that makes it so useless? please be specific instead of wasting my reading time with more useless filth that i have become accustomed to seeing from the ignorant trolls on this site.

Score: 0

By phenomnaruto

edited Jul 24, 2007 - 6:25 PM

Oh and someome please tell me how Vista is like ME? SO far all the companies are supporting them at least with 32 bit drivers. There are no exploits or security problems with Vista that have not been resolved.
Vista has better enhancements then any Mac OS ..... there are too many trolls on this site and this BOGUS news comment from Acer, just lit a fire under their butts.

It aint Microsoft's fault that Acer cant sell their inferior computers.

I dont know what you expect from an OS but if Vista is so bad, go play with the kiddy pool OSX or downgrade to XP until windows 7 comes out.

Score: 0

By Jordanr05

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 7:09 PM

Don't let the trolls get to you. Besides, isn't it like 60-70% of the windows kernel was re-written? (I could be wrong someone help me out here). Naturally there's going to be issues with such a drastic change. Then there's the new driver model in place etc. etc. I'm using Vista right now and it's definately no ME.

Score: 0

By jspratjr

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 9:58 PM

I've been using Vista for a couple of months now, had an issue with one of my HP printers (downloaded a new driver and fixed it) and that's it. Personally I like it - it came installed on a new computer and I've had no other issues to speak of.

Score: 0

By phenomnaruto

edited Jul 24, 2007 - 6:32 PM

ummm Acer sucks. Their computers suck, no one bought them when XP was the OS. At least not in arizona Compusa stores (ex compusa employee here)

Score: 0

By darkzero63

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 12:16 AM

Theres a reason why Acer is number 3.

Score: 0

By cranbers

edited Jul 24, 2007 - 7:40 PM

This article stated that Acer is catching up to Dell's sales figures in the number 3 spot with HP in no 1. 4.2 million Acer computers sold in 3 months? So yeah I think a few people bought them.

As for being an ex comp usa employee as I recall didn't they recently shut down a ridiculous number of stores to save money? compusa wasn't selling much of anything so your we don't sell acer computers is pretty much a waste of text.

I have seen Acer computers, while yes depending on the price point their computers can get a bit cheap, if you buy a cheap model. But that is no different than HP, DELL or whoever else there is.

Acer is a lot better than they used to be.

Score: 0

By phenomnaruto

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 8:30 PM

Yes they did, Compusa's business model was fail.

Score: 0

By Floodland

edited Jul 24, 2007 - 5:32 PM

I see many recalls about Windows ME (I compared them some time ago too), but I think Vista is much worse:
When MS crippled Windows ME, they did it on purpose to force people to use Windows 2000 (they were released about the same time-frame). MS wanted to move to W2k but OEMs insisted about win9x (windows 98se worked pretty good). So the smart boys released that crap(ME) and told users that the real system was W2k, ME helped to accelerate the migration towards NT kernel "satisfying" resellers at the same time. But now the situation is absolutely different: MS had to start from scrap twice and after 5-6 years still released a beta (I still think that Vista is far from complete). Now you can compare it against Mac OS (which works great) and even Linux start looking good compared against Vista.
Vista is crap but MS has nothing else to offer, their future does not look good compared with ME...
I just hope Ubuntu keep growing and finally developers replace THE Linux problem: X (x.org is not good enough). If the Linux community develops a good GUI, computers future would finally turn away from the "devil". This may be the time, let's see...

Score: 0

By cranbers

edited Jul 24, 2007 - 8:14 PM

The thing I never understood is that Xp is a descent os, with mature stable drivers etc. They released a new os, based on practically the same code, yes they did have to rewrite a lot of it for some reason, security I guess. But it broke every single last driver and application that xp had.

I mean did anyone try to game or install nero or anything else for that matter when vista was rc1? The community had to put in some mightly long hours im sure to get everything to work in vista, and still till this day a lot of stuff doesn't work and is still being worked out. The video drivers are just a simple example.

I mean I just don't get it, Vista is not that much more secure and that is saying we still see patch tuesday for vista. We also see more application compatibility fixes then anything else as well 6 months after the fact.

So its no wonder oem's are walking around saying vista is giving us a headache. it's madness.

If microsoft had real competition on the x86 computer and did not have customers and oem's eating out of its hands we could maybe get some where but as I said. For one thing microsoft is filthy rich, I mean they can come out with junk, treat customers like crap, treat developers like crap, treat oem's like crap. Charge outrageous prices, 400 dollars for an os, just so they can 1, sign on to a domain network, 2 use some media application for tv's and 3. have special back up software and be given "extra's" that 6 months after the fact is still not here?

A company that uses this dominence in one area, to gain an advantage in every other area and does so without a choice. IE, Windows defender, Media player, media center, calender, email, picture viewer etc. Can I uninstall to make more room on my c: drive? Nope. Why is that ok? Why is it necessary? Oh yeah microsot can do whatever they want, because the world runs their os, they are rich they are powerful they have lobbyests and the one chance the world had to regain at least some sort of competition on the desktop computer was lost when the break up order was over ruled. WTF?

Microsoft's dominence is not because they are the best its like this.

A. Customer demands windows because its the only thing they know.
B. Oem's provide what the customer wants. and most people buy the cimputers from oem's that are available at Best buy, circuit city, walmart etc.
C. Customer see's friend with computer, software is available at the local store. Everything all connects therefore completing the cycle go back to A.

A = B = C = A = B = C

So the cycle has to be broken, how can you do that when the only competition has no compatible software, has a fraction of the developers and only 4 percent market share? And practically no game support and hardware.

Now lets talk about linux, linux is pretty mature and can do most things well, that is if there are no complications. Browse the web, plenty of free software, most things work out of the box after install. But game support isn't there, advertising and marketing is not there and it has a reputation as being a geek os, no one knows about it except for what they hear from others and no one really truly finds out for themselves.

I would use linux if my favorite games were on it. But they are not, so I use vista. Let's hope by windows 7 linux can solve that problem then I will jump ship.

Score: 0

By Jedite

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 11:30 PM

The only reason why Windows has problems and will continue to have problem is that any new version has to support legacy software/hardware.

Thats the problem. If at some point in time Microsoft comes out with a new OS that absolutly does not support legacy software on its core, and uses Virtual Machines to deal with legacy software, you will see how good an OS can be. Not only that, but an OS that requieres by DEFAULT a new driver architecture and not a rehash of previous driver models.

Score: 0

By Beta777

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 9:07 PM

I hope you got a "A" for that thesis. The fact still remains that all operating systems have their share of problems-- Macs included. Competition is what usually drives a better product...like the Mozilla Firefox browser send explorer reeling.

Score: 0

By bodean

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 5:06 PM

Goes to show that Vista is no more than ME 2.

Score: 0

By mdownie

edited Jul 24, 2007 - 4:55 PM

I hate my Mac... I want vista, i have had vista in various stages during it's alpha and beta and as it progressed found it to be a great operating system, some of the new technologies look very hopefull. I dont understand why every body is bashing it and going "stupid Microsoft... what did we expect" the same people make there lively hood working in an industry where Microsoft if the Operating system of choice for the users they support. These so called Techies? that bash Microsoft for every software release they make and then are in industrys that support these software packages and make a lively hood of them are the biggest hypocrits. You make money off supporting other peoples accomplishments with out showing any real inovation your self... if microsoft is so bad how bout you do something better and quit your b****ing.

Score: 0

By jburrows

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 5:38 PM

This is the perfect opportunity to give an appropriate shout out to Linux...

Guess what, your Mac you hate so much is where quite a few original concepts in Windows stemmed from. Microsoft innovates by acquiring -- there are more technologies in Windows that were licensed or developed out of house, than ones actually R&D in-house. I'd link references, but it's just common sense if you follow actual news of the acquisitions by MS.

Before Microsoft stuck it's foot in the door for several fields, there were other main players. Why would a "Techie" NOT complain about having now a new proprietary player/standard that sets artificial limitations, which previously didn't exist "in the industry?" Bill is an excellent businessman, not a software programmer. That's why MS gets bashed. Last time I checked, recurring fees bring in more money than one-time purchase sales!

Don't get me wrong -- the industry definitely needed a nudge and a big player to force competitive innovation, I thank MS everyday I use my Linux desktop cause without such a need to develop a free alternative standard, most of the software I use on my box wouldn't be as aggressively developed!

Score: 0

By Marticus

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 5:13 PM

I think you're a troll.

Score: 0

By yokozuna

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 4:37 PM

I think that the Acer dude is damn right. Even more, both ATI and Nvidia said that they do NOT support their mobile graphic cards in Vista: http://www.techwarelabs....rticles/other/nosupport - which would be unthinkable some time ago. What is ironic, the newer cards support DX10 which can be utilised under Vista only, but the cards themselves do not support Vista at all. I think that Vista - from user's perspective - made much more problems than it solved (if solved any problem).

PS What I find partilarly funny, the defenders of the Microsoft OS usually use the type of argumentation that have been restricted for Linux users: "it is not the fault of Vista, but the fault of 3rd part program creators/hardware builders", "the OS is not immature but the user", etc. etc.

Score: 0

By DudeBoyz

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 4:35 PM

Vista is a let down, to be sure. More companies are allowing XP in their configs, including Dell, CompUSA and others (not Best Buy yet though, I think.

XP is still the best alternative, given what's out there. I just don't see the benefits of Vista for most of us.

Score: 0

By sjc001

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 9:08 PM

Actually, Dell is starting to offer Ubuntu on some of its systems. Thats where I had heard of it and I have now switched over to it. I now dual boot with Ubuntu as my main OS, and a nLited version of XP to play my games on.

Score: 0

By philosopher_dog

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 4:12 PM

Well sales figures would need to be adjusted to economic realities in the U.S. under the Bush nightmare economic policies of waging pointless foreign wars. So, I'm not sure sales indicate much here unless appropriately adjusted. However, customer satisfaction figures would be more interesting. I'm not seeing much positive come out of vista, but then again xp was a piece of junk compared to 2000. It takes years to get these things patched and working with all the zillions of pieces of junk Chinese made components out there. Apple doesn't have to do that and they still have an operating system that isn't worth all the praise one hears from the fan boyz out there. It's just not that great. It's a lot of bloat and flashy graphics that runs on crap hardware. Get over it already!

Score: 0

By ladylust

edited Jul 24, 2007 - 4:06 PM

So the STFU and and sell windows XP on your crappy laptops.

Score: 0

By DonGato

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 4:22 PM

If only Microsoft would allow it. ;)

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 4:25 PM

Uh...they do...

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 3:48 PM

"The entire industry is disappointed with Windows Vista."

Glad Acer can speak, since everyone else is unable to represent their part of the industry...

Score: 0

By Program86

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 3:41 PM

DUH!!!

DUH!!!

DUH!!!

Thats what every REAL computer user has said since the day it was released.

Total Disappointment. Do you expect anything less from Microsoft? "laughs"

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 4:28 PM

"Thats what every REAL computer user has said since the day it was released. "

What exactly is a "REAL" computer user...??

Score: 0

By Dinofond

edited Jul 24, 2007 - 4:48 PM

One that doesn't troll Beta news forums to spam them you freaking n00b!

Score: 0

By Jordanr05

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 7:12 PM

classic

Score: 0

By dracodos

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 3:06 PM

XP was also a system hog at the time it was released, more so after SP2, but buggy as hell pre-SP1. XP SP2 has become quite the stable and robust OS.

I can only hope this happens with Vista. It could be a good OS but it needs to be broken in and fixed. The only thing i really don't like about vista is the restrictions concerning High def video, which i know is not totally MS's fault but i'm still not happy about it. Right now i'm sticking with XP, but who knows if SP1 handles many of the bad bugs the OS has currently it might become more recieved.

Score: 0

By DonGato

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 4:24 PM

I don't remember XP being a "system hog".
It wasn't as fast as 2000 in an old computer but being, as Vista is now, slow as hell in a new brand computer is another matter.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 4:33 PM

"as Vista is now, slow as hell in a new brand computer is another matter."

I don't know...Vista works pretty fast on my laptop...

Score: 0

By DonGato

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 11:52 PM

Well, bought a shinny new dual core notebook and had to remove Vista because it was slow as hell. XP runs 2x faster or better on the same hardware.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 1:55 PM

Slow as hell doing what? I have a not so new laptop and it runs perfectly fine...though I don't play games on it. I have a shiny new desktop with Vista which also runs perfeclty fine...games run a little bit slower, but still smooth enough, I'm not an FPS fiend...

Score: 0

By arossetti

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 2:07 PM

In a related story, consumers are disappointed with Acer...

Score: 0

By -Wanted-

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 4:29 PM

Bravo, Arossetti.

I bought a Acer -- bad idea -- in February and returned it within three days.

Score: 0

By wat0114

edited Jul 24, 2007 - 3:17 PM

I bought an Acer laptop just over a year ago and it has worked flawlessly. The graphics quality on the 15" lcd screen is beautiful.

Score: 0

By Program86

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 3:42 PM

Acer is a very good brand. I have had nothing but success with their hardware.

Score: 0

By Jordanr05

edited Jul 24, 2007 - 7:14 PM

Some of their laptops haven't held up well in my company (hinges breaking, screen shells cracking). But then again, they haven't been absolute s*** either. Not enough for me to bash them all over betanews that's for sure.

Score: 0

By GS5

edited Jul 24, 2007 - 2:01 PM

Every time M$ release a new OS we hear the same $h!t. This new Windows sucks, I'm switching back to 3.1, 95, 98, ME (o.k. ME was crap), 2000, XP. In 2010 everyone will say I'm going back to Vista. LMAO

Score: 0

By goldensonic

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 3:07 PM

No s*** dude lol i already have copies of old betanews pages were everyone hates vista and im so linking them in 2010 lol just to prove our similar point. altho gotta admit os x is alot better lol

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Jul 25, 2007 - 11:00 AM

Switching back to 3.1? You could just go straight to linux for the same result.

Score: 0

By AntiochMedia

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 1:39 PM

First off -- I appreciate Scott's articles - they are well balanced and include tons of reference material and quote.

I have to sheepishly grin as I just swapped back from Vista to XP after running Vista since its release date. I fully enjoyed the enhancements to the UI (even though I was not using Aero), however, it's remarkable to be running XP and have my computer perform almost 2x as efficiently in doing the same exact tasks.

I'm very disappointed in Vista. I feel towards XP vs. Vista the same way I did about 98 and ME. Vista is bloated in the wrong ways and does very little to actually furthur the potential of the PC industry. MacOSX on the other hand has an extremely powerful BSD core with many of the BSD/Linux advantages (compiling GNU applications, mastery of the system via the BSD console, compiling custom kernels) - and for the end user, it comes with a wonderful suite of software (which MS could have done if it wasn't for the antitrust suits and the fact that Media Player and other similar apps are just not as simple and user-friendly as OSX apps).

To put it in short - I'm horribly disappointed with Vista. I'm disappointed in the end result. The OS was supposedly built from scratch and I honestly think that the security improvements over a fully patched XP seem minimal. I'd rather have had XPS3 with .NET Framework 3 and a new skin. It would have made everyone's lives easier.

People still purchase XP-based OS(s). Throw in enough reason for an update -- some bonus applications, vouchers towards discounts on other Microsoft Products, perhaps a creative way to bypass the anti-trust suits like having an online credit for an online Microsoft product download center... I don't know.

Due to its price, bad industry reviews, and offering very little beyond the experience of XP, I think that Vista is basically bolstering sales of Apples Computers and nothing more.

XPSP3 or XP+ or something like that with all of the critical patches not only installed by default - but applied INTO the OS rather than being updates - would have been brilliant. I like XP and I appreciate its relevance for home and enterprise users.

Score: 0

By Malenx

edited Jul 24, 2007 - 1:31 PM

Working at Best Buy I have gotten a lot of customers who didn't like Vista, but only 1 in the past 7 months that asked us to load Vista for him.

It's got some amazing features if you use them, but for fanboy gamers, who ironically yell the loudest, it's junk.

Score: 0

By slinkys_delsol

posted Jul 24, 2007 - 1:32 PM

Windows Vista is the Windows ME of it's time.

Lack of Software and Hardware Support and total compatibility problems.

Plus, if MS has such confidence in Vista then why is the new Windows is slated for 2009 - 2010? Bottom line, Apple put it's new OS out this year too and MS (Like they did with ME) simply wanted a product on the market.

If you like "Pretty" and "Incompatible" then Vista is for you.

Also, all those people that ran out and bought Vista to find they are having a TON of Issues, bottom line, NO ONE put a gun to your head made you go to the store, buy the OS and install it. YOU simply wanted the latest (Not the Greatest) on your PC.

Stay with what works and is most reliable for you.

Also if any Hardware Manufacturers / OEM is listening. You should consider offerng your system OS Free and Cheaper. I say this from the point of I work in IT, and in many organizations. With that, any PC we bought, the initial / factory bui